Attention, Warren Kinsella: Lawyer Counsels Violence!
Washroom Nazi Hunter Warren Kinsella is outraged that Ezra Levant would dare "publish" a death threat against his buddy, Lucy Warman.Note to Warren: the threat was made by an anonymous poster, and Ezra deleted it. If you're really concerned about lawyers calling for physical violence against others, you might check out this clip of... That's right! Your buddy, Lucy Warman!
Of course, Warren doesn't care about threats of violence, just so long as it's his buddies making them.
Poor Warren. He's had a rough time these last few months. I'll bet he wishes he was back in the kitchen with Lucy and the rest of the HRC gang, baking cookies.
HILARIOUS UPDATE: I have been banned from Dr. Dawg's site for being... An agent provocateur! Apparently he was not too pleased by my attempts to get him to clarify his potentially libelous comments implying that Ezra Levant knowingly approved a death threat. Anyway, I'm now an agent provocateur!
What can I say? I was just doing a Richard Warman impression. I thought he'd approve!
UPDATE UPDATE: A poster named Travis provides a neat summary of what happened over at Dr. Dawg's blog, which deserves to be re-posted here in full:
Cameron said:No, indeed. Here's more:
"Chris, are you saying that condoning pieing is the same as condoning what any reasonable person would read as a a threat of a torture session followed by death? "
"Yes, let's be clear here, I don't think Ezra supports death threats against any one,"
So Ezra doesn't support death threats, he just condones them? That's a mighty fine hair to be splitting.
It would appear that several posters here let their dislike of Ezra Levant get the better of them and implied some rather nasty (and likely untrue) things about him. And when someone called them on it and provided a much simpler alternative interpretation (which Occam's Razor indicates we should accept), they retreated to a technical argument that no one disputes, tried to pretend they never said anything untoward and then banned the whistle blower.
Not your finest hour gentlemen.
Travis | 04.11.08 - 12:09 pm | #
Adam C, both positions made assumptions about Levant's motives. I fail to see how the assumption that Levant endorsed the comments is even remotely as reasonable as the assumption that it slipped through. In fact given that Levant removed the comment we can conclude that he does not endorse it.Exactly. Actually, if anything I was giving them the opportunity to back off a little and clarify their comments. It's telling that they banned me and refused to clarify anything.
Ti-Guy, interesting that you would assume I'm a conservative. It's also interesting that apparently object more to my "civility" more than my "passive-aggressiveness". I'd offer to call you names if that would make you feel better, but Dawg has already implied that he might ban me so I'll have to give that a pass.
MWW, does not the act of removing the post also speak for itself? Why don't you credit Levant for that in your analysis?
"Nobody has alleged anything here. They have merely observed what is true and can be proven."
You obviously haven't read the same comment stream I have. What can be proven is that the comment appeared on Levant's blog and was later removed.
If you want to argue that Levant was sloppy or lazy about policing his comments go ahead, there's a valid criticism there. If you want to argue that decorum indicates that he explain why he removed the comment, go to it. You won't get any objection from me.
In any case I don't see how Chris could force you to say anything just by posting comments. From my point of view he was checking to see if anyone had the balls to flat out say what they were oh so happy to imply about Levant. And the answer to that was a resounding no.
A poster named Cameron keeps posting "infer vs. imply" or some such thing, as though it's okay for them to infer Ezra approved of a death threat, but not imply that he did. Of course, they did both, but I find the attempt at a distinction somehow amusing.
No, Mr. Warman, we didn't IMPLY you're responsible for the Cools post, we INFERRED that you were responsible for it. How would Lucy react? With (A) a defamation lawsuit, (B) a s. 13 complaint, (C) a pie to your face, or (D) all of the above?
Labels: Richard Warman, Warren Kinsella
posted by Chris Vanoostveen at 2:31 PM
35 Comments:
Ezra runs a moderated comments site. That means he had to approve the comment for publication. He deleted it after a reader protested.
Pie-throwing is not, on a scale of one to ten, much of an assault. The entartistes do it as a form of ego-deflating. Sure, technically it's an assault, but it's not a rope around the neck with electrodes up your ass, to quote Levant's commenter.
Get a grip, man.
Ezra gets dozens, sometimes hundreds, of comments per day. You're assuming he reads every word of every post before he hits "approve," and that he knowingly approved a clear death threat. That's a pretty stupid assumption, if you ask me.
And, if you want to defend pie throwing, that's your business. It's a physical assault, and lawyers should not be counselling street thugs to engage in it. But hey, that's just my opinion.
We don't even know he was a lawyer at the time. Do we?
There are 80 or so comments on that thread, most of which were made before the execution one.
Your attempt at moral equivalence isn't helped by this kind of argument.
By the way, I wonder what Warren thought of the various "Pie Brigades" who targeted Jean Chretien.
What do you think? Would he dismiss it, not much of an assault, nothing to see here, etc.?
Warren? I know you're lurking around here, what do you think? Pie throwing: No big deal?
Dr. Dawg, the pie incident illustrates that he's unfit to be a lawyer, whether it happened before or after his call to the bar. IMHO, anyway.
As I wrote on your page, I never suggested any moral equivalence. It's far worse to counsel thugs to commit an assault, as Warman did, than it is to accidentally approve a post with a death threat -- one post amongst hundreds -- for a couple hours, as Ezra did.
I notice that you provided Ezra with a partial, out-of-context quote from me. I don't give a damn, but I must say that's the kind of dishonesty that appears to be a hallmark of conservative debating tactics.
As I said, if you want to say pie throwing is no big deal, that's fine, but be prepared to deal with the consequences. The quote I provided Ezra is not "out of context" as it captures the essence of what you were saying.
And, as someone who initially implied that Ezra himself, not some anonymous poster, made the death threat, or at least that he approved of it, it's a bit rich for you to complain you're being taken out of context.
Stop squirming. The pie incident was clearly comparative when I was persuaded to talk about it. And I posted a screenshot that makes it plain that Ezra was not the author of the call for execution.
I repeat: you were dishonest, you are now being even more dishonest, and this will be our last exchange.
Everyone can judge for themselves who is being dishonest.
Remember to head over here too, where Dr Dawg repeatedly claims I am trying to equate pie throwing with death threats, or even that I think pie throwing is worse!
Here's what he said: "You are trying to equate a pie-throwing incident in Warman's youth with a threat to kill a person whose politics you dislike. In fact, you are indicating that the former is worse."
Of course, that's complete nonsense.
And you say I'm being dishonest?
The person posting the death threat was probably just a buddy of Lucy's, if not Lucy "herself" trying to stir up shit.
I don't know how anyone can remain supportive to someone who has admitted to posting hate messages, under an assumed name, simply in order to launch yet another profitable HRC complaint.
I really don't know either.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Ming the Merciless is pals with the Jade Warrior, or some other character Dean Steacy read about in his childhood.
Given how Warren & Co. are exploiting this message and trying to claim Ezra is somehow responsible, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
A quick internet search reveals that "Ming the Merciless" is a character in the Flash Gordon series who "foments a deadly feud between Prince Barin of the planet Mongo and the Clay People of Mars."
We know Steacy was a sci-fi fan...
"Pie-throwing is not, on a scale of one to ten, much of an assault."
As I recall, the pie guys who got Ralph Klein during Stampede some years ago did indeed "do time."
Guess it depends on who you pie. Lizard Man is OK, a provincial premier is not OK. So, what would I expect if I pied Kinsella? Warman?
Not that I would encourage anyone to pie either fellow, at 1:30 Monday in front of the CHRC building.
If you pied either Warman or Kinsella they would sue you in world-record time, and rightly so.
Yet it's okay for Warman to tell his pie gang to assault other people, apparently.
I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised that Dawg would say what he said about assault.
Yes, a death threat is a criminal offense. So is throwing an object at someone.
But just as there is difference between throwing a knife and a Boston Cream Pie (hmmmm.....pie....), there is a difference between an pseudonymous posting from goddess knows whom and a real threat.
I will notice that Dawg's first (and only?) action on discovering this Potentially Deadly Act was to, not contact the requisite police force, but to create a screen shot and post it on his blog. Where I guess he was hoping said police force would just happen to be reading, and eventually get around to investigating.
Now, from a world where holding up a photo of an aborted fetus is against the law in some situations, it is interesting, this balance of death threats vs. pies, isn't it?
My prediction: Mr. Warman will not come to any sort of harm that can be traced back to anyone who can be convicted of anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
James, you are incorrect. Indeed I did alert the police, and direct them to my blog. And now, for having done that, one of your political co-religionists is all over me at my place.
There are two issues here, James, or maybe three. First, issuing calls for execution indicates just how hateful the Right can get. It's also against the law. So much for Ming, and never mind the fatuous "I was just kidding" alibi that his political allies are offering him at the moment.
Secondly, despite claims by the weasel who runs this place, I did not once, ever, speculate as to Ezra's motives--as I have said before, the question here is one of responsibility. I know nothing about Ezra's motives (although everyone seems to be intimately acquainted with mine), or his lack of them. I'm not clairvoyant like some of you folks. I judge actions, not states of mind. So much for Ezra.
Finally, someone else introduced pie-throwing into the discussion. I was asked what I thought. I think it's less problematic than death by a combination of strangulation and electrocution. Now I'm being criticized for not seeing the obvious moral equivalence. Silly me.
Dawg, that's right, you didn't speculate about his motives (though others at your blog did), but you did imply he had a motive. You implied he read the death threat and knowingly published it.
Whether because he supported it, or didn't care, or (like Kinsella said) has lost all self-control, sure, you didn't speculate. Sure, I agree. But what you did -- imply that he knowingly published a death threat -- is plenty bad enough.
It seems to me that you're the one who is now trying to weasel your way out of some pretty disgusting and probably libelous statements about Ezra Levant.
Second, there's hate, and wackos, on both sides of any modern political debate. If you don't believe that, you've been smoking something. Two words for you: Shoshana Berman.
Sorry, but the threats of "Ming the Merciless" don't say anything about the Right, or how hateful it can get. We don't even know "Ming" is on the Right -- he could easily be Dean Steacy or some other agent provocateur (a real one, not just someone asking for a clarification of comments that could potentially be libel -- like I was doing on your blog).
Third, you and others on your blog have repeatedly claimed Ezra is "responsible" for Ming's comments. I assume you mean legally, since you've reported him to the police.
Here's some quick legal advice: look up "mens rea." Because that's what you need to prove legal, criminal responsibility. And Ezra couldn't have it if he didn't read the comment before allowing it to appear on his site. It's pretty simple, really. Your case against Ezra is a joke.
Lastly, I agree with you that torture and murder are worse than pie-throwing. For you to imply otherwise is (a) completely dishonest, and (b) completely stupid.
What I did claim, however, is that telling a bunch of thugs to go pie someone (which Richard Warman did, on tape, undeniably) is a hell of a lot worse than mistakenly approving Ming's comments, for a couple hours, as Ezra did. He has hundreds of comments to approve, and -- sad but true -- doesn't always read all of them.
It's unfortunate that Ming's comment slipped through, but your claims/implications that Ezra is responsible for the death threat are, quite simply, repugnant, and, I think, probably libel.
James, you are incorrect. Indeed I did alert the police, and direct them to my blog.
And to your credit. But you didn't mention this until after you were called on it. All I read is what you had posted, the same thing you did with the last death threat you noticed a few weeks ago. I would hope that you also called the cops on that one.
As mentioned, though, if death threats are in fact dangerous, isn't propagating and extending the message also dangerous?
And now, for having done that, one of your political co-religionists is all over me at my place.
Sorry, Dawg, I have no truck with such terms as "political co-religionists". They only serve to squink up conversation, as if I have to defend everything anyone says if I agree with 1% of what they believe politically.
There are two issues here, James, or maybe three. First, issuing calls for execution indicates just how hateful the Right can get.
And the Left, likewise. I could, but won't, scroll through any left-wing site you'd like if you want me to find like examples. Whenever Cheney has a bit of indigestion, they actually have to end comments over at Kos as the hatred burns through.
It's also against the law.
Which is good. As I've said, we don't need the current HRC Star Chambers as we already have laws against what is dangerous.
The question is how dangerous? If you wanted to, you could bust every kid in the school yard for yelling at his friends "I'll kill you"...
Finally, someone else introduced pie-throwing into the discussion. I was asked what I thought. I think it's less problematic than death by a combination of strangulation and electrocution.
But "Ming" hasn't actually caused anyone's death. Just the threat of.
Pie throwing is a true meatspace crime, with full consequences. The idiots who pied Charest were convicted of assault.
Therefore, Warman counseled assault.
Levant is guilty of sloppy comment keeping. Speaking of moral equivalence...
Just as I don't believe Ozzy Osbourne was guilty of goading teenagers into killing themselves, I don't think "Ming" will have much sway, even if a homicidal right-wing maniac happened to be reading Levant's blog that day.
Now I'm being criticized for not seeing the obvious moral equivalence. Silly me.
Not as silly so much as being a director of a politically unnuanced passion play that is trying to score cheap artificial dudgeon for the twits in the back rows...
"Not as silly so much as being a director of a politically unnuanced passion play that is trying to score cheap artificial dudgeon for the twits in the back rows..."
Exactly James. Speaking of which, I like how the discussion at Dawg's blog has degenerated into comments like "ezra. you coy motherfucker" and "it's just the winged monkey brigade" etc.
I'm happy to be banned & won't be going back.
But Dawg, you're more than welcome to demonstrate your idiocy here anytime.
Chris, I'm a conservative who rather likes the good Dr Dawg. I think some credit has to be given to be given to the fact that the dialogue there gets excessive, personal and repetitive because he welcomes opposing views and perspectives, obviously much more than his base does. But that shouldn't make every post a challenge to we on the right to capture the place. For those of us who aren't convinced we always sit with the angels and actually value serious debate, there is little future in endless cross-ideological arguments on who is stupider or more dishonest.
We conservatives should be like polite guests over there. Make our point and then move on. It makes us look classy and above the mob. No need to confess we support vigorous blogging by the left to distract them and keep them out of Parliament. :-)
Point taken, Peter.
Though, since he has banned me, I guess I don't need to worry about it. I can't say I'll miss the likes of Ti-Guy, KEvron, Cameron, etc.
I do hope they keep distracted -- the thought of that crowd in power again is profoundly disturbing.
In my opinion, that was the second potentially actionable statement Dr. Dawg made on his blog.
Only a few days before, Dawg accused Levant of encouraging people to Harass Richard Warman. After I pointed out his statment was likely libellous, he quickly changed his wording.
He then lied about when and why he changed the wording.
But quite clearly, Dr. Dawg is swimming in a pool where there are dish larger than he. Then again, he does that quite often....
This is unfortunate, but I think the only way the left is going to change its views on libel chill and abuse of process at the HRCs is for people like Dr Dawg to be hit with a few complaints and libel suits.
Dr. Dawg has clearly crossed the line into libel, more than once. At least if you go by Warman or Kinsella's standards (judging from their latest notice to freedominion). He should be forced to deal with the consequences.
I'll have to agree with Peter Burnett. Dawg and I have been sparring partners for over a decade:
http://groups.google.ca/group/can.politics/msg/aa3958a7c6d115f0
He's the kind of guy that you have to be pretty prepared to score any points with, as he doesn't suffer fools well. He can be achingly deliberately obtuse and disingenuous at times, but of all the lefties out there, he'd be one of the few I'd like to share a beer with.
Unlike most of the "fleas" that surround him on his site these days...
I do take your point, James. He's no Ti-Guy or KEvron, though I'm not sure that's saying much.
Again, since he has banned me, it doesn't really matter.
For the record, I wasn't trying to get him (or anyone) in trouble for libel (someone else brought up the libel issue). I was pointing out that what he was saying or implying was coming pretty close to libel, and giving him an opportunity to back off and clarify his comments.
He didn't, and banned me instead. And the fleas get free reign.
I don't doubt that he's among the best the Canadian leftosphere has to offer. But that doesn't seem to mean much these days.
You're a real piece of work, Vanoostveen.
Lying scum.
Hey Anon, thanks, a brand new libel charge from an anonymous poster. Haven't seen one for a long time. There oughta' be a law, no?
Last night I has this dream wherein a couple of very stern Vicorian-type ladies grabbed the heros of both the left and right in the Canadian blogosphere and washed their mouths out with soap. Believe me, it was a nightmare and much scarier than one of Warman's writs.
At times like these, I like to quote that seminal Western philosopher, Rex Murphy of the CBC, who opined a few year ago that the problem and tragedy for all Canadians was that they didn't understand they have won the lottery of life compared to everyone else. We will debate until the end of time why that is or who is responsible or how to improve (as we should), but God help us if we ever lose sight of that blessing and where we sit in the Grand Global Order. Such as by pretending we are oppressed by some vague powerful establishment and deserving of vicitm status or a license to drop all pretense of civility or decency in the name of what we are convinced is TRUTH. I used to think this syndrome was endemic to the left, and I still do, but after seeing the Warman-inspired blogging wars of tha last few months, not quite as confidently as I used to.
Hey, "Anonymous", care to point out the lie?
Peter, I do understand what you're saying. In defense of Kate & co., though, if you're being libelled every day, and called "KKKate" etc., or accused of inciting murder (like Ezra), I can understand their difficulty in being civil in return. I confess I would have trouble myself.
I agree, Chris, I'm just venting a bit. It feels a bit like being caught in the middle of a bar room brawl. I know which side my friends are on and I'm perfectly prepared to believe the other side started it, but at some point you just want it to be over. How about we send everybody to the box for ten minute misconducts and add five minutes for the left for instigating? :-)
Agreed. Though I'd add a gross misconduct penalty for Warman, Steacy et al.
I'm a lawyer myself and I really can't get over the sight of Warman encouraging a bunch of street thugs to go pie someone, or Steacy stealing a private citizen's bandwidth to post racist messages online.
It's quite a team, the left has. Although, full credit to lefty bloggers like Red Tory, who I've always liked, who aren't keen to defend the Warmans and Steacys of the world.
Hey, Vanoostecunt. What happened to yer blawg?
成人圖庫,口交技巧,成人18,自慰方法,Fleshlight,情色自拍貼圖,成人情色貼圖,少婦自拍,一夜情聊天,本土av,色情av,av圖片,色情聊天,成人情色網,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,情色少女貼圖,免費視 訊聊天網,av女優18,免費線上視訊fm358,avdvd免費AV女優,女優王國,做愛,無碼影片,情色交友
從人生中拿走友誼，猶如從生活中移走陽光........................................
Military pilot who had sex with an 11 year old boy when he was 17!!!
A JUNIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL WHO HAD SEX WITH AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENT!!! This pedophile needs to be on a sexual preditor list.
And how long did he masterbate and think about having sex with boys? In boot camp? Into his flight training?
Post a Comment
<< Home